Veterans Day, Phoenix, 2012: For Marty Atencio.

The following photo is from the Veterans Day parade in Phoenix, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio rolled out his biggest toy to honor our dead soldiers. I stopped to leave him a message for one dead Army veteran he should be especially mindful of: Marty Atencio. That man should be held criminally liable for the death of his prisoners given the dehumanizing treatment he encourages and the culture of contempt he's cultivated among his officers. 

The chalk is mine, but I can't take the credit for the shot: Lisa Blank took it, and it's all over Arizona Community Press's Community Free Press Facebook page. Thank you Lisa!

Remember Veterans like Marty, Sheriff Joe.

Veterans  Day 2012: Phoenix

Thanks to Stephen Lemons at the Phoenix New Times for this series about Marty's brutal killing by Phoenix Police and Joe Arpaio's deputies at the 4th Avenue Jail last year...

------from the Phoenix New Times----

Joe Arpaio's U.S. Veteran Victim Marty Atencio: Family Files Suit in Superior Court

By Stephen Lemons
Published Tue., Oct. 23 2012 at 12:24 PM

The family of U.S. Army veteran Marty Atencio is filing suit today in Maricopa County Superior Court over his brutal death late last year in Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Fourth Avenue Jail.

Atencio, who suffered from mental illness, was off his meds and wandering the streets in a daze on December 15, when he was picked up by Phoenix cops, allegedly because he had frightened a woman with his bizarre behavior.

Read the Atencio family's lawsuit.

That woman later stated that she'd hoped Atencio, 44, would receive the help he needed if he was in custody.

Instead, he received a one-way ticket to a military funeral.

See also:
 
-Joe Arpaio's Victim Marty Atencio: Family Files Notices of Claim Totaling $20 Million in Wrongful Death Case
-Jailhouse Goons Make Fun Of and Kill a Mentally Ill Inmate
-Joe Arpaio's Victim Marty Atencio Killed by "Law Enforcement Subdual," Among Other Factors, Says Medical Examiner (w/Update)
-Joe Arpaio's Victim Ernest "Marty" Atencio Laid To Rest
-Joe Arpaio's Latest Victim Marty Atencio: MCSO Video of His Detention

Though Atencio was processed first without incident at the Phoenix Police Department's southern command station, his experience later in Fourth Avenue would be brief, humiliating and fatal.

There, Atencio was taunted and made fun of by MCSO detention officers, as is recounted in the suit:

After going through the medical screening, Marty was taken to have his mug shot
taken. While Marty was having his mug shot taken, the D.O.s were taunting him, asking him to "clown" for them, telling him to "turn left," "turn right," and making fun of Marty's
inability to follow instructions. 

As the guards made fun of Marty, they told him to make funny faces and the photographer, and a female Detention Officer, kept saying "let's make this one the Mug Shot of the week." After they took a particularly humiliating mug shot, the D.O.s had finished their fun with Marty and took him back to the holding tank.

Along the way, Atencio was escorted by Phoenix Police Officer Patrick Hanlon, who, according to the complaint, led Atencio "with his hands and arms bent in a position which caused Marty pain."
The complaint continues, stating that, "While Officer Hanlon was escorting Marty to the Linescan Room, Marty said `you're making Tony angry, you're making Tony angry.' Marty was telling Officer Hanlon that the officer was hurting him."

Shortly thereafter, in the jail's so-called "linescan room," as millions have now witnessed in video released by the MCSO, Atencio essentially did not remove his shoes fast enough for the officers present, with deadly consequences.

Atencio crossed his arms in front of him, in a non-violent stance. And that's when they pounced, piling onto Atencio, wailing on him and Tasing him, in what the suit refers to as a "jailers riot."

The complaint relates how these goons then dragged Atencio to a so-called "safe cell," where, as Atencio was held down, he allegedly was kneed more than once by MCSO detention officer Anthony Hatton.
Atencio was stripped of his clothes, and left to die. The jail's video system captured a naked Atencio breathing what looked like his dying breath on camera.

Outside the cell, as I've previously reported, Phoenix cops and MCSO detention officers partied like it was 1999.

"After this event," reads the complaint, "the jail's surveillance video outside `Safe Cell 4' shows D.O. Hatton, with a smile on his face, talking to other Officers, while two MCSO women danced and bumped their buttocks together."

Later, Atencio's brain-dead body was revived by officers and rushed by paramedics to a local hospital, where his family ultimately decided to remove him from life support.

The Atencios lawyer, tort titan Mike Manning, who just won a $3.2 million settlement for the family of diabetic mom and Arpaio jail victim Deborah Braillard, observes in the suit that Atencio's death is the direct result of the "culture of cruelty" in Arpaio's vast incarceration complex.

Also, the complaint makes clear, the MCSO is in direct violation of federal court orders instructing Arpaio and the county to provide proper medical screenings of prisoners for mental and physical illness.

Because the MCSO is not in compliance with these orders, Atencio was not properly screened on arrival at Fourth Avenue, where the health care "professional" who examined him noted signs of psychosis, yet did not provide Atencio with the medical help he needed.

Unfortunately, all the court orders, lawsuits and multi-million dollar payouts seem to do nothing to change the reality of Arpaio's disastrously-run jails.

The only real change will come if the voters wake up, and retire Arpaio on November 6 by voting for his Democratic rival Paul Penzone.

Otherwise there will be more victims, more Marty Atencios, and a lot more lawsuits.

Justice Policy, Data and Veterans

"Remember our buddies in prison"
Veterans' Day, 2010
Phoenix, AZ

----------from the Justice Policy Institute--------

Is Data Doing Justice to our Veterans?

Guy Gambill
Published: August 16, 2011

Following my own military service, I experienced homelessness and plenty of justice contact. In addition, I watched far too many other veterans live shattered lives, in many cases dying at far too young of an age. I had hoped to not see this happen again, but I am afraid, unless things change rapidly, it will be so. And while there are many fronts that need to be worked on, until we have accurate data on the scope of the problems our vets are currently facing, we cannot begin to come up with solutions.

In spring 2008, I was part of a group of veterans’ advocates, criminal justice professionals, federal employees and researchers gathered to brainstorm around what had become, by then, an issue of note: the large numbers of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who were experiencing some level of contact with our criminal justice systems. The product that resulted from this meeting was a policy brief entitled, “Responding to the Needs of Justice-Involved Combat Veterans with Service-Related Trauma and Mental Health Conditions.” The brief noted that on any given day, nine out of 100 men in jail or prison is a veteran; this figure, it stated, was in line with the percentage of the general population that are veterans – that is, veterans were not over-represented in the justice system.

Coming up with an accurate statistical picture of what is really taking place should be one of the first tasks undertaken by any stakeholder confronting an issue. As an advocate for the many veterans who have ended up in prison or jail, it was difficult to believe that “by the numbers,” there was no reason to be concerned. This led me to ask, what do we really know about veterans’ justice system involvement? Rather than my being mistaken about what seemed to me to be a significant problem of veterans behind bars, could it be that the “facts” were wrong?

As I came to find out through my own digging, in this country we had very little in terms of a reliable national body of statistics in this area prior to 1981. It was in that year that the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics published a report on veterans in prison in the form of a six-page bulletin. The bulletin noted no difference between incarceration rates for veterans versus members of the general population. The observation was later echoed in the press release issued prior to the release of the second DOJ report in 2000.

I began looking to see if this data contained methodological flaws and/or possible oversights. The first consideration would be whether the Veterans population could be considered equivalent to the general population. One salient difference that struck me was that people in the military were “pre-screened” prior to military service at point of enlistment or draft. For instance, someone with a diagnosed serious mental illness – which we know to be correlated with more justice involvement in the general population – would have most likely not been eligible to serve. And someone with serious prior justice involvement – another characteristic that makes a person statistically higher risk for future arrest or incarceration – also wouldn’t be accepted into the military. Given these significant differences in the two populations, incarceration rates between veterans and the general population should be expected to be different: veterans should be expected to have lower rates of incarceration. That they reportedly have similar rates should have been of note.

Regarding the data itself, people are not required to declare whether they are veterans when they are arrested or become incarcerated. We therefore have to date relied on surveys. The DOJ-BJS 2000 and 2004 (released in 2007) surveys, done in conjunction with the U.S. Census Bureau, were based upon contact with one percent of all state and federal prison inmates. Of our more than 12,000 state and federal prison facilities, the surveys were conducted in a mere 254 facilities, the identify of which has not been released. This is a problem when one considers that in many states there may be facilities which take higher numbers of inmates who are veterans – for example, around military bases. It is critically important to know in which prisons the surveys were conducted if we are to state with any degree of certainty a difference or similitude in incarceration rates between veterans and general population members.

A further set of concerns arises when we stop to consider what we mean by justice contact for veterans. Are we referring to federal and state prison inmates alone, or do we also include those locally incarcerated and those on probation and parole? What about arrests? The next DOJ-BJS survey is not slated to be conducted until the year 2013 and, based on the prior surveys, will probably not be publicly released until the year 2015. Needless to say, obtaining even a marginal understanding of the emerging picture for veterans in justice will come too late for far too many. Aside from the DOJ and BJS, the Veterans Administration is another possible source of information. However, to date there has been a level of resistance toward the release of any data-sets at all.

Finally, another array of concerns and questions arises around the issue of ethnic and racial statistics. During the Vietnam era, the percentage of “minority” service members within the totality of our Armed Forces was at 15%. In today’s Armed Forces, however, over 40% are soldiers of color. Despite a number of longitudinal studies conducted in the wake of Vietnam, which noted distinctive characteristics for minority population veterans – particularly with regard to such germane topical areas as a culturally-specific resistance to mental health care treatment and diagnosis – very little action has been undertaken to address the concerns raised. In terms of the statistical picture necessary to fully understand possible disparate justice involvement by veterans of color, in the DOJ-BJS Bulletin from 1981 it was noted that nine States did not distinguish between Hispanic-Latino and Caucasian veterans. In the latter surveys, it was noted that Latino veterans were incarcerated at a higher rate than Latino non-veterans, but failed to clarify whether the previously omitted data-sets from the aforementioned nine states were then included.

In addition, given the abiding racial disparities in our justice system, it is surprising that statistics indicate that Black veterans are incarcerated at lower rates than non-veterans. Yet no one is looking to see whether, for example, there is under-reporting of veteran status by African Americans (or whether, as noted earlier, those prisons surveyed may not have been representative).

In order to obtain answers to questions such as why better statistics aren’t available and who will look into what appear to be jarringly unexpected numbers, federal agencies need to be held accountable; and we can start with the Department of Justice.

Those within the upper echelons of DOD or the VA tend to downplay the numbers and the problem in general, often implying it’s just a few “bad apples.” More than 200,000 homeless veterans is not a minor difficulty. Nearly a quarter million veterans in our prisons is not a small problem. As is so often the case in contemporary America, those who are impacted by problems within a given focal area are very often in the least advantageous position to advocate on their own behalf; and not having the facts needed to push for better change is unconscionable. For the hundreds of veterans’ families that have tried to help when their sons or daughters come home only to end up in a jail cell, these are not esoteric concerns or a far-removed research topic. These men and women live the realities of lives that were put on the line at the nation’s behest and were subsequently forgotten. Of the perhaps 75 people calling the shots on addressing veterans in justice across a variety of organizations, two served in the military. None of them, to my knowledge, was ever justice-involved.

The incarceration rates for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans will exceed those of the Vietnam era easily. By 2015, without swift action, we can expect to see an influx of young veterans behind bars. Right now, a complex bureaucratic research and policy system is failing to deliver even the basic information needed to address these problems. We can do better.

Guy Gambill, a veteran of the armed services, will spend his 18-month fellowship advocating for alternatives to arrest and incarceration for veterans. Gambill most recently held positions as the Research and Policy Director at the Veterans Initiatives Center & Research Institute and as the Advocacy Coordinator for the Council on Crime and Justice, both in Minneapolis, Minnesota. An Army vet, Gambill did a tour of duty in Germany and received an Honorable Discharge in 1988. For his service, he received the Army Achievement Medal, Primary Leadership Development Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Good Conduct Medal, and Presidential Unit Citation.

Rest in Peace, Elizabeth Anne Friedel.

**Hit this link for the 2011 update on Clark Fish**

It is very seldom that I alter or remove a post in response to a complaint from a reader, but in the case of "Happy Birthday Clark Fish", I've made an exception, having heard from Dave Friedel, the brother of the woman Fish was convicted of murdering. With his permission, I am posting his remarks from our correspondence below. I hope Mr. Friedel's comments are taken into consideration by whomever incarcerates him as well, so that they may protect other prisoners from his apparent proclivity to prey on the more vulnerable.

My first post on Fish at Arizona Prison Watch - a straight reprint of Kaj Larsen's original article for the Huffington post - remains, though I will link it to this one so the two perspectives are connected at both ends. I decided to remove my birthday post on Fish from all my sites after reading both Friedel's emails and reviewing Larsen's written and video pieces again. I remain an opponent of both the death penalty and mass incarceration, but am no less troubled by what to do with people who are a danger to others in our community. Regardless of the source of their own disturbance - be it childhood or wartime trauma - they can't be allowed to continue to abuse others as Fish did to his victim leading up to the moment of her death. They certainly should not be celebrated as martyred victims themselves, which is essentially what the post I removed suggested by inviting people to drop Fish a line on his 25th birthday, at which time I believed he was still facing the death penalty. As Mr. Friedel states, Fish has since taken a plea life without parole, offered at his victim's family's urging.

While I found Larsen's story on Fish and other veterans with PTSD accused of violent crimes compelling, Fish is hardly the poster boy I would choose to represent traumatized soldiers - and I apologize to those men and women for seeming to do so. He does not appear to have had a deep-seated objection to perpetrating violence, as so many vets with PTSD do. Fish, rather, is a coward and a bully. His pattern of behavior, as evidenced by numerous 911 calls for domestic disturbances and violence in the months before Elizabeth Friedel was so brutally killed is as troubling as the murder itself.

While traumatized vets are indeed more likely to be convicted of violent crimes than members of the general population, I don't believe those crimes tend to emerge out of a long-standing pattern of abuse and domination of another. Rather, much of what I've read about are assaults or murders involving all-too-accessible lethal weapons when someone reaches a breaking point - representing a divergence from, not continuation of, character that was formed before their own traumatization or victimization.

For those unfamiliar with why the death penalty would be considered by a jury in the first place, there are stipulations about the crime being especially heinous in nature to consider - like torture. There are details to this case that suggest PTSD is now being used as a convenient excuse for such conduct, not identified as an extenuating circumstance where someone has actually taken responsibility for their actions. Perhaps Fish was poorly represented in his trial, but his claim of innocence during the guilt determination phase is now contradicted by his "mitigating circumstance" claim that PTSD caused him to kill his victim. This defense is not presented without his consent. Either Fish is guilty or he is not - if he is not, then his PTSD is irrelevant. If he is, than his entire defense can't really be trusted as sincere.

Whatever kind of man Clark Fish was before he donned a military uniform and learned to justify killing another human being, it is disturbing that he seems to show little remorse (if he is guilty) or even sympathy (if he is not) for the woman whose torment and murder he is being held responsible for. His obsession is with his own survival now; his perception seems to be that he is the only victim here. Fish's legal representation and his representation of himself - particularly the shift in strategy once convicted - has done him and all vets with PTSD a disservice.

We are all victims of both the military industrial complex and the mentality it can breed - some more so than others. Many people have endured far more horrendous, life-altering experiences of violence and trauma than Clark Fish describes - including survivors of childhood sexual abuse - and yet have not chosen to perpetrate systematic violence on others in response. Many go on to help others instead. This is why prevention and early intervention with victims of trauma is so important - to teach them how to manage their pain and rage in a way that does not result in them harming others or compel us to segregate them completely from the rest of human society.

This is one place where both the government and victims' rights organizations fall short. Americans are taught to believe that our own injuries or losses justify even greater violence to those who we believe have or may harm us or a loved one. We are a vindictive people, not at all invested in the kind of justice that heals and restores communities and lives, but rather that which brutalizes on a grand scale by war, mass incarceration, and executions as punishment. In the name of our own "protection" we succumb to a similar mindset as that of our perpetrators.

This is how we have justified things such as the genocide of Native Americans, the demonization and overwhelming oppression of dark-skinned immigrants and descendants of those we have enslaved and colonized, and the persistence of grossly inhumane conditions in American jails and prisons. We are rarely even moved by stories of the innocent victimized by our laws and our Anglo-American Manifest Destinies, we so want to believe that we are just in the eyes of the Creator even as we destroy lives.

I realize I may often confuse my readers with contradictions of opinion and sympathy. That's because I have no clear-cut answers - we tread in many gray areas here where interests and perspectives in total opposition don't automatically invalidate the other. In fact, one of our biggest problems with "justice", it seems, is that we too often adhere to rigid, Old Testament notions of what exactly that might constitute, and too seldom explore the contradictions.

With that, I give you the voice of one survivor of Clark Fish's indoctrination into violence - one which began when guns were toys and wars were games - and his decision to act it out on one more vulnerable than himself. Those of us who challenge the state on the conduct of its more disturbed soldiers - and those of us who do not accept the death penalty as a solution - especially need to hear what Dave Friedel has to say. I imagine he did not extend himself to talk about this issue without experiencing considerable pain in the process, and am grateful that he gave me permission to reprint his words here. I owe both him and his family my apologies and condolences.

---------------------------------------

Dave Friedel	Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:38 PM
To: arizonaprisonwatch@gmail.com, prisonabolitionist@gmail.com
Reading your article; specifically the video from the Huffington Post (http://arizonaprisonwatch.blogspot.com/2010/07/clark-fish-ptsd-and-death-penalty.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kaj-larsen/for-returning-soldiers-is_b_636579.html ) is very disturbing because the slant this piece about Clark Fish provides ZERO information around the 4 months of torture of Elizabeth Anne Friedel endured (restraining orders, 911 calls, Police engagements, etc), harassment against the family seeking to help her, the AWOL status of Clark Fish and lastly the threats AFTER her murder by Clark. How do I know ALL of this??? Because I am the victim's brother and know firsthand as I desperately tried to help her. I sat through the entire trial, heard all the facts, and listened to the 911 calls of Beth pleading for help. This is the sort of HACK journalism which FAILS the public by not reporting the COMPLETE story. I fully support our troops and believe programs should be offered to treat PTSD but you cannot dismiss their actions if they FAIL to seek help, take medicine, or be civil in society. Shame on you Mr Larsen for tainting our troops efforts by showcasing a poor example of what they experience. Clark never was on the line and never was put into battle (confined to guard duty on the base) because of his conduct. He volunteered in that hospital because of his prior AWOL status in which he served in Military prison for 6 months until he changed his mind to serve along with our honorable men and women. -- regards, Dave Friedel

---

Peggy Plews	Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 9:28 PM
To: Dave Friedel
Dear Mr. Friedel, I appreciated your note - albeit a painful one, understandably. I'm not a journalist myself - you landed on my personal blogs where I had re-posted Larsen's Huffington post article. I had received a number of inquiries from readers about how to contact Fish (I am based in Phoenix), so made a second post about him which included his address and the link to the video piece "War Crimes" that Larsen did. The connection between PTSD and violent crime (not only among veterans) concerns me; I'm adamantly opposed to the death penalty myself; and Larsen's article was indeed sympathetic to Fish after following him for over two years. So, in my own editorializing I was also sympathetic to what he faces now without giving sufficient thought to evidence that he was repeatedly abusive to your sister and may well have killed her. For the injury that my thoughtlessness may have compounded, I am truly sorry. I would be willing to post either an article you recommend that presents the other side of Clark Fish's story - your sister's side - or something you want to write yourself. I would even post the following letter as a guest editorial if you want - a criticism of my decision to post what Larsen wrote in the first place. I can handle the criticism. It will make me think twice the next time. Your perspective is certainly one that should be heard on the issue. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and shouldn't be left to one person to tell. Please let me know how you would like to proceed on this, if at all. I don't think that even among my small audience your voice will fall on deaf ears. I can't speak for Larsen, however. My condolences for the terrible loss of your sister. Sincerely, Peggy Plews “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” - Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) Prison Abolitionist http://prisonabolitionist.blogspot.com Arizona Prison Watch http://arizonaprisonwatch.blogspot.com Hard Time: Hep C in AZ Jails and Prisons http://hardtimehepc.blogspot.com Free Marcia Powell http://freemarciapowell.blogspot.com ¡El pueblo unido, jamás será vencido! [Quoted text hidden]

---

Dave Friedel	Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 1:08 AM
To: Peggy Plews
I can appreciate your objection to the death penalty, although I do not share it and here is why. The objection is based on the belief that people are all inherently good, sometimes make mistakes and want to do the right thing. After all, society functions quite well and everyone basically operates within the structure to the benefit of the whole even if the economics of it are based on the "Invisible Hand" that Adam Smith so eloquently outlined. I can fully appreciate this and by all means, I too would count myself among you in this thinking. But the reality is, this is simply not true for all of us. The fact is 1 in 25 people who walk among us have a deficiency (or advantage depending on how you look at it) to avoid the conscious will to be good or reflect the other person's pain; the root of all religions aka the Golden Rule. For this reason, it leaves quite a few people with a vulnerability which can be exploited to the determinant of us and others. This is not to say all psychopaths are murderers or are evil, but they have the ability to shut off that which society deems as the governor to regulate compassion. I have spent quite amount of time and research to understand psychopathy and degrees in which they operate with in society. Clark Fish had 3 of the 4 common markers for psychopathy and trust me, when I initially met him, he was perceived as charming but I also was at the brunt of his unbelievable hate as I tried very hard to intervene and help my sister. So much in fact, that he wrecked my car, threatened my life to the point of filing a restraining order myself, and eventually blaming me for my sisters death (saying if I tried harder she would be alive today). In fact, it was my family that told the district attorney (whom I have the deepest respect for) to provide Life without Parole as an option when the 12th juror broke the law by initially telling the other jurors she would never consider the death penalty. Everyone was prepared to seek the death penalty again and on July 29th 2010, Clark did end up taking the offer for Life in Prison. Does he deserve to live his life in prison? No, but those of you against this process are ignorant to the realities that these viruses do exist and only after being personally impacted can a person truly appreciate the realities of surviving such an ordeal. I have a new found respect for the individuals who live through pandemics, especially when they could be prevented by a unified society approach. Our appeal process provides 18 years to correct a wrong, but the cancer that lives within our prisons will continue to spread as we move psychopaths into general population with other inmates trying to serve time for far less crimes. Do not think for ONE MOMENT, Clark will not feed on the other weaker people in prison - trust me he will. It is exactly the undeniable compassion people possess which makes it so hard to convict and protect our society. As for posting my replies on your blog, I will leave that up to you. I would be just as understanding if you removed the article to begin with.

The Walking Wounded and Purple Hearts.

This lengthy update on new federal rules that should help soldiers and veterans get easier access to benefits due to PTSD symptoms comes from Charlie at CURE National - we get a lot of good info from them. As Charlie notes, without a purple heart to sway a judge, veterans with PTSD will probably keep going to prison at the rate they have been.

I have mixed feelings about giving out a bunch more purple hearts, though. My Dad was shattered by war, and I always thought he should have received one for what they did to him, but I don't want to glamorize anything about war more than it already is. Those medals and ribbons aren't just for the folks who "earn" them - they serve to justify state violence and glorify warriors, enticing the next generation of soldiers to enlist. The promise of college tuition with a stint in the service is certainly a big motivator for many youth - especially poor youth of color who see their peers and older siblings going off to prison at astounding rates. But most of the soldiers and vets I've known weren't in it for the money and benefits - state uniforms and rank command respect and infer nobility of some kind among the mainstream of our society. They also give people power, though, which they sometimes abuse or fail to recognize the grave consequences of.

Medals reinforce the honor of doing violence; they symbolize heroism and self-sacrifice, shame dissenters, and - except for firefighters - are most often given to cops and soldiers for the work they do for the state (even though teachers, nurses, and many other folks serve their community and country just as devotedly - sometimes at very high risk). I think that would just confuse a vet who was struggling with his or her role in war, whether they became targets themselves or whether they hit their targets from 5000 feet in the air. That's why I'm reluctant to endorse handing out a bunch more purple hearts.

Still, in all my years of working with homeless veterans, it was the ones with chronic PTSD and head injuries - not the amputees or those who took a bullet in the gut, got out and got through it -who were the most disabled by their experience. Having a buddy die in your arms, or watching a child burn to death is pretty devastating, especially if you think you should have been able to save them but couldn't. Their courage as well as their fear need to be validated, but not necessarily with a medal. For some people, recovery necessitates re-evaluating one's mental framework, and confusion is a sign of progress towards rejecting, rather than rationalizing, choosing a profession - or a crime - in which violence is seen as a necessity. Once you have that medal on your chest, you're suddenly not supposed to feel confused about any of it at all. I don't think that's necessarily a good thing.

Anyway, I'm posting this whole notice because a lot of folks from military bases have been finding their way to this site trying to make sense of what's happening to Clark Fish - and so many others like him. And while these new rules may not seem to affect the practice of mass incarceration on the surface, I think there may still be a trickle-down effect. If the VA is actually taking PTSD seriously and removing some of the barriers they've had to approving claims, they should also be improving access of veterans to treatment services - which could reduce the incidence of crime among them. It should also help legitimize PTSD as a mitigating factor in both prosecution and sentencing decisions in more jurisdictions.

This is so important because veterans, on the whole, are more prone to be convicted of violent crimes than non-veterans, which is what lands them in prison instead of doing community service or drug treatment programs. It risks harm to others and compounds their own trauma when they aren't able to check their fear or rage, or when they rely on psychoactive drugs to regulate their temperament for them. That combination can be a volatile cocktail even for those of us who haven't been trained to numb ourselves to the gruesomeness of war, the body counts, and the wondering about how many school children ended up being our collateral damage that day.

That connection between a history of trauma and being charged with violent crimes is evident among non-veterans as well, most notably women in prison. Those who have histories of trauma and victimization are much more likely to commit violent offenses than those who have never been abused. We turn victims into criminals when we fail to address the long term consequences of violence and terror - the potential that the victim may become the perpetrator - and in so doing we re-traumatize them further.

The last thing most of these folks want to do is hurt more people; they just want to stop being in so much pain themselves. Victims' rights groups would have a totally different take on crime and punishment if they followed the people they advocate for over the course of a couple of decades. It's not enough to throw a woman's rapist or a child's molester in prison and suck whatever money you can out of him as restitution, then cut them loose in ten or twenty years. For the victim's sake - for everyone's sake - we need to develop more systems of restorative justice that keep victims and communities safe without fostering internalized shame (manifesting in criminalized addictive behavior, for example), or externalized vindictiveness or rage further down the road in either survivors or perpetrators of violence.

"Victim" and "criminal" just aren't mutually exclusive categories, and we do everyone a disservice by acting as if they are - especially since it's the victims that so often get criminalized, which then exposes them to the more insidious and extensive violence of the state. At least 10% of men, women and children heading to prison will be physically or sexually assaulted there. The kids are most vulnerable, of course, and their perpetrators are most often the ones in uniform getting medals. Our recidivism rates are evidence that people don't get "rehabilitated" through being imprisoned, enslaved and brutalized - especially not if their festering wounds were caused by oppression in the first place.

Good luck to all you vets out there working on your PTSD benefit claims. I hope these new rules help, and that we bring your comrades home in one piece soon.

----------------------from CURE National---------------------

Dear Friends,

The new rules on PTSD Claims are a step forward. But I see little impact on alternative sentences for former combat veterans in the criminal justice system who are suffering from PTSD or TBI(Traumatic Brain Injury).

CURE feels strongly that these veterans should receive a Purple Heart like other combat veterans who are physically injured. Then, this purple heart recipent can convincingly show the judge that he should receive an alternative sentence if his crime was the result of PTSD or
TBI.

Because of below, combat veterans with PTSD and TBI will certainlyhave an easier time proving they should be given benefits. But, I think without a purple heart, they will be sent to prison pretty much at the same rate they are now.

Which, by the way, once in prison, veteran benefits are terminated during incarceration.

Charlie

*****

July 12, 2010

New Regulations on PTSD Claims

Quick Facts:

This new rule is for Veterans of any era.

The new rule will apply to claims:

o received by VA on or after July 13, 2010;

o received before July 13, 2010 but not yet decided by a VA regional office;

o appealed to the Board of Veterans' Appeals on or after July 13, 2010;

o appealed to the Board before July 13, 2010, but not yet decided by the Board; and

o pending before VA on or after July 13, 2010, because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated a Board decision and remanded for re-adjudication.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

“Stressor Determinations for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder”

1. What is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)?

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a condition resulting from exposure to direct or indirect threat of death, serious injury or a physical threat. The events that can cause PTSD are called "stressors” and may include natural disasters, accidents or deliberate man-made events/disasters, including war. Symptoms of PTSD can include recurrent thoughts of a traumatic event, reduced involvement in work or outside interests, emotional numbing,
hyper-alertness, anxiety and irritability. The disorder can be more severe and longer lasting when the stress is human initiated action (example: war, rape, terrorism).

2. What does this final regulation do?

This final regulation liberalizes the evidentiary standard for Veterans claiming service connection for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Under current regulations governing PTSD claims, unless the Veteran is a combat Veteran, VA adjudicators are typically required to undertake extensive record development to corroborate whether a Veteran actually experienced the claimed in-service stressor. This final rulemaking will simplify and improve the PTSD claims adjudication process by eliminating this time-consuming requirement where the claimed stressor is related to “fear of hostile military or terrorist activity,” is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of their service, and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or contract psychiatrist or psychologist confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD.

3. What types of claims for VA benefits does the final regulation affect?

The final regulation will benefit Veterans, regardless of their period of service. It applies to claims for PTSD service connection filed on or after the final regulation’s effective date, and to those claims that are considered on the merits at a VA Regional Office or the Board of Veterans’ Appeals on or after the effective date of the rule.

4. Why is this final regulation necessary?

The final regulation is necessary to make VA’s adjudication of PTSD claims both more timely and consistent with the current medical science.

5. How does this final regulation help Veterans?

The final regulation will simplify and streamline the processing of PTSD claims, which will result in Veterans receiving more timely decisions. A Veteran will be able to establish the occurrence of an in-service stressor through his or her own testimony, provided that:

(1) the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD;

(2) a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a PTSD diagnosis;

(3) the Veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor; and

(4) the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service and the record provides no clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

This will eliminate the requirement for VA to search for records, to verify stressor accounts, which is often a very involved and protracted process. As a result, the time required to adjudicate a PTSD compensation claim in accordance with the law will be significantly reduced.

5. How does VA plan to monitor the need for examiners in various regions of the country, and how does VA plan to respond if is determined that more examiners are needed in a particular region?

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has written in to the FY11-13 Operating Plan the need for additional staff to support doing adequate, timely exams. VHA proposes: “A8. Increase mental health field staff to address the increase in C&P examinations and develop monitoring system to ensure clinical delivery of mental health services does not decrease in VHA.“ Specifically, VHA has requested 125 clinicians for FY11 with additional 63 staff in FY12 if the need exists. If the Operating Plan and the proposed budget are approved, VA proposes asking the Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) to develop plans for distributing the funds in order to ensure adequate coverage at sites based on number of claims being processed; the VISNs are well positioned to determine these regional needs.

6. How does the regulatory revision affect PTSD service connection claims where an in-service diagnosis of PTSD has been rendered?

The new regulation does not apply to the adjudication of cases where PTSD has been initially diagnosed in service. Rather, under another VA rule, 38 CFR § 3.304(f)(1), if a Veteran is diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder during service and the claimed stressor is related to that service, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided that the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the Veteran's service, the Veteran's lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor.

7. Is the new regulation applicable only if the Veteran's statements relate to combat or POW service?

No. The rule states that the stressor must be related to a “fear of hostile military or terrorist activity,” and the claimed stressor must be “consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran’s service.”

8. What circumstances will still require stressor verification through DoD’s Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) , VBA’s Compensation &Pension Service (C&P Service), or other entity if a Veteran claims that his or her stressor is related to a fear of hostile or terrorist activity?

The regulatory revision will greatly lessen the need for undertaking development to verify Veterans’ accounts of in-service stressors. Now, stressor development may only need to be conducted if a review of the available record, such as the Veteran’s service personnel and/or treatment records, is inadequate to determine that the claimed stressor is “consistent with the places, types and circumstances of the veteran’s service.” In such circumstances, the Veterans Service Representative (VSR) will determine on a case-by-case basis what development should be undertaken.

However, it is anticipated that in the overwhelming majority of cases adjudicated under the new version of § 3.304(f), a simple review of the Veteran’s service treatment and/or personnel records will be sufficient to determine if the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service. We also believe that, in some cases, a Veteran’s separation document, DD-Form 214, alone may enable an adjudicator to make such a determination.

9. As the regulatory revision seems to require an enhanced role for the examining VA mental health professional, whose role is it to determine whether the claimed stressor is consistent with the Veteran’s service?

VA adjudicators, not the examining psychiatrist or psychologist, will decide whether the claimed stressor is consistent with the Veteran’s service.

10. Is a Veteran's testimony about “fear of hostile military or terrorist activity” alone sufficient to establish a stressor?

Yes, if the other requirements of the regulation are satisfied, i.e., a VA psychiatrist or psychologist confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a PTSD diagnosis and that the Veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor, and the stressor is consistent with the “places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service.”

11. Are the stressors accepted as adequate for establishing service connection under new § 3.304(f)(3) limited to those specifically identified in the new regulation?

No. The examples given in the revised regulation do not represent an exclusive list in view of the use of the modifying phrase “such as” that precedes the listed examples. Any event or circumstance that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of the Veteran or others, would qualify as a stressor under new § 3.304(f)(3).

12. How will the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) work with Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) on the new regulation?

VHA was actively involved in discussion with VBA of the new regulation and fully supports the new regulation.

The new regulation will provide fair evaluation for Veterans whose military records have been damaged or destroyed, or for whom no definitive reports of combat action appeared in their military records, even though they can report such actions and it is reasonable to believe that these occurred, given the time and place of service.

This will be especially beneficial to women Veterans, whose records do not specify that they had combat assignments, even though their roles in the military placed them at risk of hostile military or terrorist activity.

This means that more Veterans will become eligible for VA care and thus be able to receive VA care for mental illness related to their military service, as well as receiving full holistic health care.VHA will work actively with VBA on implementing the regulation. VHA staff’s main role is as clinicians conducting C&P interviews to establish diagnoses and obtain other information to be used by VBA raters to determine the outcome of claims.

The new regulation will not change the diagnostic elements of the C&P interview, but may change what additional data are collected for use by VBA raters.

Justice, Drug Treatment, and US Veterans

Report: Vets need drug treatment, not jail

Navy Times

By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Nov 5, 2009 14:25:31 EST

Treatment, not incarceration, should be the first option for veterans who commit nonviolent drug-related offenses, a group advocating alternatives to the nation’s “war on drugs” said Wednesday in a new report.
The Drug Policy Alliance report also called on government agencies to adopt overdose prevention programs and policies for vets who misuse substances or take prescription medicines, and urged “significantly expanded” access to medication-assisted therapies, such as methadone and buprenorphine, for the treatment of dependence on opioid drugs used to treat pain and mood disorders.

During a conference call with a Drug Policy Alliance representative and seven other advocates for change in the treatment of veterans, the military’s Tricare health benefits program came under fire for what a New York-based physician and specialist in drug addiction treatment called its failure to pay for veterans’ and family members’ opioid dependence treatments.

The treatments, said Robert Newman of the Rothschild Chemical Dependency Institute, are endorsed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Institute of Medicine.

Newman cited a 2008 speech by U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam Michael Michalak in Hanoi, in which he acknowledged that U.S. dollars were being spent on methadone treatment for Vietnamese drug addicts.
“And yet, our government, our Department of Defense, has an insurance plan that simply excludes maintenance treatment,” Newman said. “I find that outrageous.”

According to the Tricare manual, “drug maintenance programs when one addictive drug is substituted for another on a maintenance basis [such as methadone substituted for heroin] are not covered.” Tricare spokesman Austin Camacho said this applies to all Tricare beneficiaries, including veterans and family members.

There are no solid numbers on how many veterans suffer from drug addiction — just as there are none that nail down the number of veterans currently in prison and county jails.

The Drug Policy Alliance says that substance abuse is the “single greatest predictive factor for the incarceration of veterans” and that without more effective treatment programs, veteran incarceration is likely to increase.

“The bottom line is, we don’t have accurate numbers,” said Dan Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance and the report’s co-author. “The data that we do have are outdated. Veterans are actually just getting lost as they come back home. They’re lost in the data sets, they’re lost in the reporting, they’re lost when agencies don’t ask them whether they’re veterans.”

Those close to the issue point out that about 30 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan war vets report symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, depression or other mental illness or cognitive disability, and that 19 percent of veterans who have received care from the Veterans Affairs Department have been diagnosed with substance abuse or dependence.

Guy Gambill, an Army veteran and advocate for veterans’ rights who took part in the conference call, noted that one of the hallmarks of PTSD “is a tendency to self-medicate. People do that with drugs, people do that with alcohol.”

USA Today reported in June that the rate of Army soldiers diagnosed with alcoholism or alcohol abuse increased from 6.1 per thousand in 2003 to an estimated 11.4 as of March.

The Pentagon says that from Sept. 11, 2001, through August 2009, some 1,991,578 individual service members have been deployed in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. It does not track how many of those served in the actual combat zones.

Gambill called for a dialogue between veterans service organizations, justice reform groups and the military to “formulate policy based on research” in an effort to avoid the widespread problems with drugs and incarceration experienced by many Vietnam-era veterans.

“If I could do anything here, it would be to exhort Congress to have the political courage to be smarter than the problem this time,” he said.

Veterans' Project: NYC

Useful, current information about veterans in the CJ system in New York. 

Only 1% of our population serves in the armed forces, I believe. Yet veterans make up 9% or prisoners in America. I don't think the young men and women who enlist are necessarily more prone to commit crimes than the rest of us. I think this speaks to how trauma and violence can affect people, how complex the overlap between mental health and substance abuse problems are, and how readily we exploit our labor in this country - including soldiers - and toss them aside when they lose their market value.  

As I look through these articles on veterans and criminal justice, I see both explicit and implied the presumption that military service in and of itself - not one's conduct, character, or the actual crime - is what entitles vets to a "break" in the justice system. Lots of people should get a break.
----------

Veterans' Project Offers Support to Those in Criminal Justice

New York Times

By SIMON AKAM

Published: July 7, 2009

There are about 70,000 veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan in New York State, many struggling with the transition back to civilian life as Vietnam veterans did, and some at risk of ending up in the criminal justice system.


A new pilot program called the Veterans Project, announced on Tuesday and set to begin in Queens, Brooklyn and Nassau County, aims to help keep them out of prison.

“If a veteran finds themselves in the criminal justice system, they deserve a helping hand,” Jonathan Lippman, chief judge of the State Court of Appeals, said at a news conference to announce the project at the Veterans Affairs Hospital on East 23rd Street.

The project — a collaboration between county prosecutors, the Department of Veterans Affairs and health care providers — will try to divert veterans who commit nonviolent crimes away from prison while helping them with underlying issues like homelessness or substance abuse.

Bruce Burnham, 63, a Vietnam veteran who served on a Swift boat in the Mekong Delta in 1965, welcomed the project.

“I had a cousin that ended up serving time,” Mr. Burnham said, adding that many of his former comrades got into trouble when they returned home. “Now this is a positive step forward,” he said.

As part of the project, defendants with military service will be identified as they soon as enter the justice system. They will be helped to get treatment and support services to address problems that many of them face, like post-traumatic stress disorder.

Those who complete the program may have their charges dismissed or reduced, or win a reduction in their sentences.

According to the Center for Mental Health Services National Gains Center, veterans account for 9 out of every 100 prisoners in United States jails and prisons.

Prosecutors say many veterans get into legal trouble when they use alcohol or drugs to try to cope with traumatic memories. Sometimes the charge is drug possession or theft, but the underlying problem can often be addiction.

Last year a RAND Corporation study said that nearly 20 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans — 300,000 in all — reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or major depression, but that only slightly more than half seek treatment.

On Tuesday, Charles J. Hynes, the Brooklyn district attorney, said that the project “recognizes the heroic services of members of our armed forces.” He added, “We cannot permit our country to ignore the lesson learned after Vietnam.”

While the project received wide support, some legal advocates said that its scope is too limited.
JoAnne Page, the chief executive officer of the Fortune Society, which promotes prisoners’ re-entry into society, said that the move to keep defendants from prison should not be limited to veterans who have been arrested for nonviolent crimes.

In some cases, she said, violent offenders “can be supervised efficiently in the community without posing community risk.”

Robert Gangi, executive director of the Correctional Association of New York, added that despite their unique status, veterans should not be the only ones to profit from this sort of program.

“A case can also be made — given that treatment is more effective and less expensive — that these kinds of supports be made available to a broader cross section of the population,” he said.

Governor Brewer: Remember Vets in Prison

War veterans are disproportionately represented in U.S. prisons, and there are still war resisters in U.S. military brigs facing courts martial or serving sentences as prisoners of conscience. Let's make sure none of them are forgotten on Veterans Day this year.
------------------------

Public Schedule For Governor Jan Brewer

Monday, November 9, 2009

• 11:00 a.m. – Governor to Visit Bishop’s Storehouse in Mesa
LDS Employment Resource Center, Conference Room
235 South El Dorado Circle, Mesa

• 2:00 p.m. – Governor Brewer to Speak at the Banner Health Dedication
and Blessing of Cardon Children’s Medical Center
Cardon Children's Medical Center
1400 South Dobson Road, Mesa

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

• 4:00 p.m. – Governor to Hold Bill Signing Ceremony – SB 1403 –
Renewable, high-wage Industry Incentives
Greater Phoenix Economic Council
2 North Central Avenue, Suite 2500,

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

• 9:30 a.m. – Governor to Participate in Veterans Day Parade
Phoenix VA Health Care System
650 East Indian School Road, Phoenix

• 1:25 p.m. – Governor to Attend Arizona State Veterans Home Barbecue
And Veterans Celebration
Arizona State Veterans Home
4141 North 3rd Street, Phoenix

Thursday, November 12, 2009

• 8:30 a.m. - Governor to Speak at 88th Annual Meeting of Arizona Farm Bureau
Carefree Resort and Villas
37220 Mule Train Road, Carefree

• 2 p.m. – Governor to Speak at Street Renaming Ceremony in Honor of
Silvestre Herrera
Arizona State Veterans Home
4141 North 3rd Street, Phoenix

• 5:00 p.m. – Governor to Speak at the U.S. Capitol Christmas Tree Celebration
Arizona State Capitol Mall
17th Avenue between Washington and Jefferson Streets

Friday, November 13, 2009
• 12:00 p.m. - Governor to Speak At Arizona Character Education Foundation’s
10th Anniversary Celebration
Salt River Project PERA Club Facility
1 East Continental Drive, Tempe